CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY 

SCHOOL OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 

Land Titles and Deeds 

Second Semester, School Year 2020-2021 

Final Examinations 

Atty. Marie Arcie Anne M. Sercado 

1. Section 70 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, concerning adverse claims on registered land, 
provides a 30-day period of effectivity of an adverse claim, counted from the date of its 
registration. Suppose a notice of adverse claim based upon a contract to sell was registered 
on March 1, 1997 at the instance of the BUYER, but on June 1, 1997, or after the lapse of 
the 30-day period, a notice of levy on execution in favor of a JUDGMENT CREDITOR  was
also registered to enforce a final judgment for money against the registered owner.  Then, on
June 15, 1997 there having been no formal cancellation of his notice of adverse  claim, the
BUYER pays to the seller-owner the agreed purchase price in full and registers  the
corresponding deed of sale. Because the annotation of the notice of levy is carried over  to
the new title in his name, the BUYER brings an action against the JUDGMENT 
CREDITOR to cancel such annotation, but the latter claims that his lien is superior  because
it was annotated after the adverse claim of the BUYER had ipso facto ceased to  be effective.
Will the suit prosper? Explain. (5 points) 

Ans. The suit will not prosper. Even though there is a lapse of period, there is no formal
cancellation of notice of adverse claim. It is deemed ipso fact. 

2. Mario sold his house and lot to Carmen for P1 million payable in five (5) equal annual 
installments. The sale was registered and title was issued in Carmen's name. Carmen failed 
to pay the last three installments and Mario filed an action for collection, damages and 
attorney’s fees against her. Upon filing of the complaint, he caused a notice of lis pendens  to
be annotated on Carmen's title. Is the notice of lis pendens proper or not? Why? (5  points) 

Ans. No. Because the sale was already registered and the title was already issued in Carmen’s
name. In this case the house and lot is not under litigation but rather a collection of annual
installments.

3. Regina has been leasing foreshore land from the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic  Resources
for the past 15 years. Recently, she learned that Jorge was able to obtain a free  patent from
the Bureau of Agriculture, covering the same land, on the basis of a  certification by the
District Forester that the same is already "alienable and disposable".  Moreover, Jorge had
already registered the patent with the Register of Deeds of the  province, and he was issued
an Original Certificate of Title for the same. Regina filed an  action for annulment of Jorge's
title on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently. Will  the action prosper? (5 points) 

Ans. The action will not prosper. Given the above circumstances there is no showing that
Jorge obtained the subject land fraudulently. In fact, Jorge obtained from the Bureau of
 Agriculture free patent attesting that the said lot is no longer needed for forest or for mineral
purposes. Jorge also registered the patent with the Register of Deeds and he was issued the
Original Certificate of Title.

  4. In 1979, Nestor applied for and was granted a Free Patent over a parcel of agricultural  land
with an area of 30 hectares, located in General Santos City. He presented the Free  Patent to
the Register of Deeds, and he was issued a corresponding Original Certificate of  Title (OCT)
No. 375, Subsequently, Nestor sold the land to Eddie. The deed of sale was  submitted to the
Register of Deeds and on the basis thereof, OCT No 375 was cancelled  and Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 4576 was issued in the name of Eddie. In  1986, the Director
of Lands filed a complaint for annulment of OCT No, 375 and TCT  No. 4576 on the ground
that Nestor obtained the Free Patent through fraud. Eddie filed 
a motion to dismiss on the ground that he was an innocent purchaser for value and in 
good faith and as such, he has acquired a title to the property which is valid, unassailable 
and indefeasible. Decide the motion. (5 points) 

Ans. In this case, Nestor acquired the land after he was granted a Free Patent. Under the
law, Nestor may sell the land or use it as collateral. The law also provides that a gricultural
public lands alienated or disposed of in favor of qualified public land applicants shall not be
subject to restrictions imposed on the registration, acquisition and transfer of land covered by free
patents under the Public Land Act.

5. In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homestead patent to A. Three years later, A sold  the
homestead to B. A died in 1990, and his heirs filed an action to recover the homestead  from
B on the ground that its sale by their father to the latter is void under Section 118 of the
Public Land Law. B contends, however, that the heirs of A cannot recover the  homestead
from him anymore because their action has been prescribed and that furthermore,  A was in
pari delicto. Decide. (5 points)

Ans.  Under the law, lands acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not
be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and
for a term of five years. In this case, A sold the homestead to B three years after he was issued
a homestead patent. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead
provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal
heirs, for a period of five years from the date of conveyance. Also in this case, A is in fault. 

BONUS QUESTIONS: 

1. Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a parcel of land in Quezon City. One year later, 
Rachelle, the legitimate owner of the land, discovered the fraudulent registration obtained by 
Rommel. She filed a complaint against Rommel for reconveyance, and caused the annotation  of
a notice of lis pendens on the certificate of title issued to Rommel. Rommel now invokes  the
indefeasibility of his title considering that one year has already elapsed from its issuance.  He
also seeks the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens. May the court cancel the notice of  lis
pendens even before final judgment is rendered? Explain. (5 points) 
    Ans. Yes. It may be cancelled upon order of the court, after proper showing that the notice is for
the purpose of annotating the certificate of title issued to Rommel, or that it is not necessary to
protect the rights of Rommel who caused the title to be registered.

2. In 1965, Renren bought from Robyn a parcel of registered land evidenced by a duly executed 
deed of sale. The owner presented the deed of sale and the owner’s certificate of title to the 
Register of Deeds. The entry was made in the daybook, and corresponding fees were paid as 
evidenced by official receipt. However, no transfer certificate of title was issued to Renren 
because the original certificate of title in Robyn’s name was temporarily misplaced after fire 
partly gutted the Office of the Register of Deeds. Meanwhile, the land had been possessed by 
Robyn’s distant cousin, Mikaelo, openly, adversely, and continuously in the concept of owner 
since 1960. It was only in April 1998 that Renren sued Mikaelo to recover possession. Mikaelo 
invoked a) acquisitive prescription and b) laches, asking that he be declared owner of the land. 
Decide the case by evaluating these defenses. (5 points) 

Ans. Mikaelo cannot invoke acquisitive prescription. Although he acquired real rights to the said
lot for a longer period of time, he did not acquire ownership legally and in the manner and
condition laid down by law. The fire gutted the Register of Deeds that caused the temporary loss
of the original certificate of title. As shown in the case, Renren acquired the parcel of land
legally. 

3. A voluntary instrument cannot be registered by reason of the refusal of the holder to surrender  the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title. What is the remedy of the party in interest? (5 points) 

   Ans. The party may file a petition in Court to compel surrender of the same to the Register of
Deeds. The court, after hearing, may order the registered owner or any person withholding the
duplicate certificate to surrender the same, and direct the entry of a new certificate or
memorandum upon such surrender. 

4. Is registered land subject to prescription? Why or why not? (2 points) 

   Ans.  Registered lands such as land registered under your family and possession, are not
subject to prescriptions. Thus, ownership over the land cannot be transferred to the possessor. 

“There is no failure, only feedback.”